Defendants might as well have said: Beneficent creatures from the 17th dimension use this bracelet as a beacon to locate people who need pain relief and whisk them off to their home world every night to provide help in ways unknown to our science.
Judge Frank Easterbrook commenting on the Q-Ray bracelet
"For Gods sake you're an American! Stop thinking of the consequences and blow something up" - Stan Smith, American Dad!
Two things these "skeptics" dislike - 1) deductive reasoning; 2) any suggestion that they might be adopting the same presumptive approach as those they claim are merchants of woo.
What is really being said is that we shouldn't care whether or not "science" is a belief as the answers we get from what folk here like to call "critical thinking" are superior to those you or I might get from the deductive approach philosophers might employ.
And on logic - too few here fail to realise that if the premise is wrong all the logic in the world won't make the answer right (I have tried to introduce this through referring to Humpty Dumpty but I think that wasn't serious or scientific enough!)
Me, I'm just here for the joy of debate and the chance to challenge ignorant observations about economics and sociology. And to poke a little fun now and then
"No statement should be believed because it is made by an authority." Robert Heinlein
However, I'd guess that quite a few dislike people who think that because they've read a book or two on the subject, they somehow know more about all forms of thinking than anyone else, including people who have probably read quite enough philosophy to realise its limitations.
Basically, the only people who respect philosophical poseurs are others of their kind and the very easily impressed, and I'm not sure how many people in either category anyone should expect to find on a skeptic's site.
Philosophy doesn't threaten science any more than it threatens gardening.
Far brighter people than you have pondered long and hard on science, but exactly how have any of them threatened it, or even much influenced it?
Which underlying assumption of science do you have any evidence for being ill-founded.
You seem to have firmly made up your mind in what I must say appears to be a fairly black-and-white fashion, and have failed to make any attempt to address a single point that anyone has raised so far.
I assume you will soon leave with your prejudices about people unsullied by thought or experience, just as your opinion of science seems also likely to remain unchanged for precisely the same reasons.
I certainly don't 'hate philosophy' - all discussions of morals, ethics, aesthetics etc are philosophical in nature. Science is pretty much useless in that regard. It's just that philosophy isn't generally the best tool for investigating the material universe ( to the limits of our perceptions, if you choose to add that caveat ).
Why are we here? Because we're here. Roll the bones...
They're not trying to further their understanding of science by categorising it, they're trying to compensate for their lack of understanding of it.
If you ever do reach that point, it'll still be a damn good bet that it's a scientist that you look to for a better world-model, not a philosopher.
'Croydon' Bob Newman. The ladies call him "Thrush" - as he's an irritating cunt.
Probably because he stated it in an offensive way?
Probably because he was uttering his hostility?
Probably because I am enjoying this thread (though not posting on it) and don't want it to stop dead?
Probably because in my years of watching people come and go here, it makes me sad that everyone is so TIRED of protecting their 'skepticism' against woo intruders, they just chase them away from sheer exhaustion?
Probably because I'm tired of the 'attitude'?
Probably because I've heard it all before?
Probably because I've been on the receiving end of such rudeness myself because of my woo ideas from Cuddles - who never knew or was ever aware of how ill it made me?
Probably because I believe that skeptics have such a bad reputation already it shouldn't be confirmed?
Probably because the only reason I am posting anything at all is that I am off sick myself and have the time to care?
Probably because I'm just old and bossy?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, if it is stated politely - and agrees with my own!
The typical 'science doesn't know everything' poster seems so predictable, practically at the level of the average creationist troll (assuming it's not a creationist troll having a go at science).
The *impression* they give is of someone who deep down has a personal problem with either science as a whole (like never being much good at it at school), or some particular finding of science (maybe contradicting something they'd like to believe, yet they can't actually show any credible evidence that that specific bit of science is wrong, so they try and have a go at science in general).
Unfortunately, just as with a pimply-faced creationist, if they're just ignored, they'll tend to just think that it's because no-one had any reply to their stunning argument.
As it is, it would seem that in this case, any number of replies might not have made any impact, since the person in question isn't actually listening, and seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that they're too profound for anyone else to understand, when instead, they're really saying nothing that hasn't been said more eloquently and less arrogantly many times before, and which even when said well, never seemed to influence science to any great extent, because it's largely irrelevant to the practical pursuit of scientific knowledge.
UK Skeptics is surely not dedicated solely to the promotion of a single kind of skepticism - some knowledge, like our personal inner landscapes cannot be scientifically quantified. It's that that we display here everytime we 'talk' to each other. The connection should be that some aspect of our inner landscape is 'skeptical'. I refuse to have my skeptical aspect squeezed into a brick of prescribed dogmatic skepticism that I hurl at other people.
Bricks of prescribed dogmatic skepticism - the kind of bricks thrown around here are also irrelevant to the practical pursuit of scientific knowledge for they are most often not the kind of bricks used in the construction of it. Scientific skepticism has different shaped bricks to the UK Skeptics/James Randi kind....
In defence of our buddhist zenthinker poster - he might not be a creationist at all - but some kind of naturalist - or even a scientist!
Scientists did indeed once think that the universe is deterministic, but that notion was abandoned a long time ago. It is through science that quantum mechanics was developed by the way, not some mystical insight.
You're displaying the sort of thinking much beloved of those into mystical/paranormal/supernatural/faith-based ideas. It's a waste of time and effort however. Even if you do show that science is flawed or wrong or unable to explain certain phenomena, it still adds no weight to any any counter-arguments or counter-philosophy.
"Science can't be used to explain qualia; therefore my spiritual 'knowledge' is correct" is not a valid argument.
On the style issue, I'm not sure if it was here or elsewhere, but I kind-of-remember at least one person turning up somewhere like this with a username that seemed to proclaim a similar kind of self-image, and start saying rather similar things. Still, that was probably just someone cast from the same type.